ArticleScientific reports2026
Inferring genetic values and variances from pre-processed phenotypes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is common in quantitative genetics to submit phenotypes to pre-processing prior to data analysis. The objective is to make computations simpler. In areas where field data is observational, e.g., studies of complex traits, records are often pre-adjusted for nuisance factors such as location, demographical structure and macroenvironments, that may mask expression of genetic values. The nuisance effects may be estimated by ordinary or generalized least-squares. We studied consequences of ignoring pre-correction of nuisance (fixed) effects using a mixed linear model framework supplemented by analyses of real and synthetic plant and animal breeding data sets. Pre-correction induces changes in model rank and sometimes distorts inferences. We also examined prediction of random effects with pre-corrected data in situations with dense or sparse information on the levels of fixed effects. Variance component analyses with ANOVA, minimum norm quadratic unbiased estimation), maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods were also dealt with. A Braford cattle data set with birth weight of calves as response variable illustrated effects on prediction of phenotypes. Our main conclusions are: 1) the impact of ignoring pre-correction depends on model complexity relative to sample size. 2) Pre-processing must be used with caution in inference as it may destroy data structure of the data and obscure the understanding of a problem under investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.